HEWITT ASSOCIATES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2007-08

section 133(6) to Megasoft Ltd. Based on the information made available, this company was selected by the Ld. TPO as a comparable. The relevant extract of the Ld. TPO’s order is as follows :- “12.17....The company has a different accounting year ending with December 2006. Thus, the company was asked u/s 133(6) to submit the audited financials

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. PIONEER FABRICATORS PVT. LTD., MEERUT

In the result ground No. 6 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Pioneer Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Circle-2, Meerut B-2, Saraswati Industrial Estate, Partapur, Meerut Pan:Aabcp3296R (Appellant) (Respondent) Pioneer Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Acit, Vs. B-2, Saraswati Industrial Estate, Circle-2, Meerut Pioneer Partapur, Meerut Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Pan:Aabcp3296R B-2, Saraswati Industrial Estate, Partapur, Meerut Pan:Aabcp3296R (Appellant) (Respondent)

133 (6) of the income tax act. During the year Ld. assessing officer has noted that assessee has issued share capital of Rs. 20330000/- and share premium of Rs. 63.70 Lacs. Therefore, the assessee was asked to furnish the requisite details and in absence of details from the assessee Ld assessing officer made the addition of Rs. 2.67 crores

GIESECKE & DEVRIENT INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 133(6) of the Act. 1.3 On the facts and in law, the Ld. TPO, the Ld. AO and the Hon’ble DRP erred in selecting certain companies as comparable, with a prejudiced intention of making an addition to the returned income of the Appellant, without appreciating that in cognizance of Rule 10B(2)(b), the 6 functional, asset

M/S. MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri B. P. Jain

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The learned CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the above addition. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 52.1 It was contended by the learned AR that assessee has obtained unsecured loan from four parties. During the course of the hearing assessee filed all documents in respect of each of these parties. During

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD., GURGAON

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri B. P. Jain

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The learned CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the above addition. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 52.1 It was contended by the learned AR that assessee has obtained unsecured loan from four parties. During the course of the hearing assessee filed all documents in respect of each of these parties. During

SAHASRA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2006-07

section 143(3) of the Act as under:- “14. After discussions, in view of the oral and written submissions made on behalf of the assessee company and on perusal of the documents on record, the returned income of the assessee company is being re-computed as under: (Rs.) (Rs.) Net Profit as per Profit & Loss Account

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SAHASRA ELECTRONICS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2006-07

section 143(3) of the Act as under:- “14. After discussions, in view of the oral and written submissions made on behalf of the assessee company and on perusal of the documents on record, the returned income of the assessee company is being re-computed as under: (Rs.) (Rs.) Net Profit as per Profit & Loss Account

TEREX EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6) and he could have used such power to get additional information. In support thereof, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Bangalore Bench in the case of IKA India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [IT (TP) A No.2192/Bang/2017] dated 17.09.2018 wherein the Tribunal has directed the TPO to exercise powers u/s 133(6

RIVET ELECTRICAL PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., Vs Pr.Cit, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. Pan-Aafcr8803C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022

133(6) of the Act. the AO found that assessee has discharged the burden as provided under section 68 of the Act. Thus, by no stretch of imagination could it be said that the AO did not verify the creditworthiness of the investor companies. 39. It is submitted that the AO made the proper verifications based on satisfactory explanation

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.,HISAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation is to be allowed on the written down value of the block after crediting the sales consideration of such cars to the block. 8. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in levying interest under section 234B and Section 234C of the Act‖. Facts for AY 2007-08 6. First, we take up the appeals

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JSL LTD.,, HISAR

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation is to be allowed on the written down value of the block after crediting the sales consideration of such cars to the block. 8. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in levying interest under section 234B and Section 234C of the Act‖. Facts for AY 2007-08 6. First, we take up the appeals

ROOP KISHORE MADAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

depreciation to the assessee as per Law, by giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee may produce other evidences before A.O, if necessary or called for by the A.O. on this issue. With these directions Ground No.1 of the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed. 7. On Ground No.2, assessee challenged the addition of Rs.24

PINGASH MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,BALLABHGARH vs. ITO WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

133(6) to all the 3 investors to seek confirmation, information and documents pertaining to transaction of issuance of shares. In response to the said notices, Assessing Officer has received all the details and replies directly from these investors confirming the transaction. The venture agreement between the assessee and the investors were also filed before the Assessing Officer

GOPESH FABRICS PVT. LTD.,BALLABHGARH vs. ITO WARD-1(3) , FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

133(6) to all the 3 investors to seek confirmation, information and documents pertaining to transaction of issuance of shares. In response to the said notices, Assessing Officer has received all the details and replies directly from these investors confirming the transaction. The venture agreement between the assessee and the investors were also filed before the Assessing Officer

SHANTA BLANKETS PVT. LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2(3) , FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

133(6) to all the 3 investors to seek confirmation, information and documents pertaining to transaction of issuance of shares. In response to the said notices, Assessing Officer has received all the details and replies directly from these investors confirming the transaction. The venture agreement between the assessee and the investors were also filed before the Assessing Officer

VIDHI CINEMAS PVT.LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

133(6) to all the 3 investors to seek confirmation, information and documents pertaining to transaction of issuance of shares. In response to the said notices, Assessing Officer has received all the details and replies directly from these investors confirming the transaction. The venture agreement between the assessee and the investors were also filed before the Assessing Officer

ZHILMIL ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

133(6) to all the 3 investors to seek confirmation, information and documents pertaining to transaction of issuance of shares. In response to the said notices, Assessing Officer has received all the details and replies directly from these investors confirming the transaction. The venture agreement between the assessee and the investors were also filed before the Assessing Officer

WEL INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Before Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12 Wel Intertrade Private Vs. Acit, Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi. 5,E Local Shopping Centre Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash Part 2, New Delhi – 110 048 Pan Aaacw10187F (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year : 2012-13

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, which could not have been held to be any valid and legal basis. 6.2.2 That the learned CIT(A) has further failed to appreciate that it had been admitted by the AO in his order that the source of advance of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- had been established by the assessee when

DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. BHAGWATI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2010-11

133(6) of the Act, cannot be ignored. 5.4 The Learned Counsel of the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that assessee has maintained a complete record of identity indicating name and address of the persons making the donation and such complete details were furnished before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceeding and therefore provision of section 115BBC